Background
In September 2023, a forcible entry and detainer action was filed against Cynthia Preston in Miami County Municipal Court. The trial court granted restitution, but Preston had already vacated the premises, making that relief moot. In April 2025, Preston filed a motion to seal and/or redact the eviction records, submitting an affidavit explaining that prospective landlords had discovered the eviction and denied her housing applications multiple times as a result. Preston stated the records negatively impacted her ability to secure safe, affordable housing and caused her financial and emotional distress.
The magistrate overruled Preston’s motion without analysis on July 8, 2025. The trial court adopted that decision the same day. Preston filed objections accompanied by a detailed affidavit, leading to further proceedings. On November 4, 2025, the trial court issued a final entry overruling Preston’s objections, again providing no reasoning or analysis. Preston appealed, raising two assignments of error regarding the trial court’s failure to balance competing interests under Ohio Supreme Court Rule 45(E) and its failure to articulate findings supporting its decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to explain its reasoning. The court held that direct appeal is the appropriate remedy when a trial court denies a motion to seal or redact court records under Supreme Court Rule 45(E). De novo review applies to such decisions because they implicate constitutional guarantees—specifically the First Amendment right of public access to court records and Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 16’s guarantee of open courts.
The court established that when ruling on motions to seal or redact, trial courts must: (1) apply the balancing test under Sup.R. 45(E)(2), considering whether public policy, legal exemptions, and specific factors (privacy rights, risk of injury, public safety, fairness) support restriction; (2) use the least restrictive means available, including redaction, time limits, restricting remote access, or using generic titles; and (3) provide written findings and analysis supporting their decision. Without such explanation, appellate review is impossible.
The court cited the Ninth District’s decision in S.C. v. T.H., which involved analogous facts (an eviction matter where the tenant sought to restrict records to protect housing prospects), and agreed that lack of any explanation—including findings of fact and analysis of competing interests—requires remand. The trial court’s bare denial without reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review and violated procedural requirements.
Key Takeaways
- Direct appeal is the proper remedy for trial court denials of motions to seal or redact court records under Sup.R. 45(E); no separate mandamus action is required.
- Trial courts must provide written findings explaining their analysis of Sup.R. 45(E) factors when ruling on seal/redact motions; bare denials without reasoning are reversible error.
- De novo review applies to court record access decisions, with no deference to the trial court, because such decisions impact constitutional rights and First Amendment guarantees.
- Courts must consider and analyze the least restrictive means available before categorically denying a seal or redact motion, even in eviction cases.
Why It Matters
This decision, an issue of first impression in Ohio’s Second District, clarifies the framework for challenging trial court decisions on seal and redact motions. It rejects the “no explanation necessary” approach and imposes a meaningful duty of reasoning on trial courts. For parties seeking to protect their privacy or housing prospects from public eviction records, this decision ensures they will receive judicial analysis of their claims rather than summary denials.
The decision balances robust First Amendment principles—anchored in Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 16 and reinforced by recent Ohio Supreme Court precedent—with recognition that Sup.R. 45(E)’s factors (including privacy rights and fairness of the adjudicatory process) may justify some restrictions if properly analyzed. It places a procedural guardrail against arbitrary denials and gives appellate courts the reasoning needed to conduct meaningful review of this important constitutional question.